Content of the article

The Ottawa Catholic School Board unanimously passed a motion calling on Commissioner Glen Armstrong to step down and publicly apologize to the Muslim community for a social media post.

Directors also ruled that Armstrong violated four sections of the Directors’ Code of Conduct and banned him from attending various meetings for the remainder of the year, among other penalties.

It is not clear what Armstrong did. Directors discussed his alleged bad behavior at a “special committee” meeting last week, which is closed to the public.

At a public board meeting on Tuesday, directors passed a motion censuring Armstrong and imposing penalties. There was no debate and few details of the misconduct were contained in the motion.

Armstrong, when asked to comment and explain the allegations against him, provided this statement: “I am disappointed that this investigation appears to be politically motivated. I do not agree with the findings and will continue to serve my constituents.

Content of the article

Armstrong is running for the Conservative federal nomination in Nepean.

The council motion said Armstrong must “immediately stop using social media accounts or council resources for his self-proclaimed political party candidacy, and he must not use those personal accounts to post or repost anything. it has to do with the Catholic school in Ottawa. school board) or their role as school counselor.

One of the driving offenses appears to have been linked to an Armstrong post about a Pakistani Muslim Canadian family in London, Ontario. who were killed by a man accused of murder and terrorism.

The council motion censored Armstrong for “a grossly inappropriate and politically motivated social media post regarding a national tragedy in London, Ontario, which is contrary to the values ​​upheld by the Ottawa Catholic School Board.”

Content of the article

The motion called on Armstrong to resign immediately for this “blatant conduct unbecoming of a director” and recommended “an appropriate gesture of restitution” would be for him to issue a public apology to the Muslim community.

The post in question was not included in the request.

Armstrong’s Twitter account is currently in “protected” status, so his tweets can only be viewed by followers he has approved.

Directors decided in the closed meeting that Armstrong violated the code of conduct in four ways:

1. Breach of confidentiality by posting confidential information before it is made public

2. Breach of proper use of social media by using personal social media account for political purposes and also for board purposes

Content of the article

3. Breaching the integrity of the board by questioning the integrity of the board as if it were independent of the board itself

4. Breach of conduct by displaying conduct unbecoming of an elected director both by his conduct at the May 25 board meeting and by his inappropriate social media posts

The details remain a mystery. What, for example, did Armstrong do at the May 25 board meeting that was inappropriate? The evening featured a debate on whether to hoist pride flags in a council office and in schools. Armstrong was the only administrator who voted against the idea.

Board chairman Mark Mullan said he decided to close last week’s meeting to the public where the conduct allegations were discussed.

The Ontario Education Act sets out the topics that school boards can discuss in camera: security of property; buy and sell school sites; litigation; Contract negotiations; and “disclosure of intimate, personal or financial information relating to a member of the board or committee, an employee or prospective employee of the board or a student or his or her parent or guardian”.

Content of the article

“I claim that the matters discussed (at last week’s meeting) were of a personal and intimate nature and would normally be discussed behind closed doors,” Mullan said via email.

Mullan was asked to elaborate on how Armstrong’s alleged violations, which included social media posts, conduct at a live-streamed public board meeting, and conduct questioning the integrity of the board administration, could be considered “intimate or personal” information.

“The violations of the code of conduct were examined in their entirety during the closed-door meeting as there were overlapping and interconnected discussions between the different areas of the violation,” he said in the statement. ‘E-mail.

The board has complied with the education law’s requirement that sanctions be voted on in public, Mullan said.

Content of the article

The directors approved a number of sanctions, including prohibiting Armstrong from serving on any board committees, attending any closed or regular board meetings, or representing the board in office until. December 31, 2021.

Armstrong must also “participate in board-hosted coaching with a third-party governance-focused facilitator” and “provide proof that he has re-trained directors on governance and board member responsibilities. administration, ”the motion reads.

During the sanction period, Armstrong will not receive any documents from the board of directors except those that are publicly available. However, “Armstrong Trustee can continue to represent and respond to inquiries from taxpayers in his area,” the motion reads.

Content of the article

Several of these sanctions, including Armstrong’s ban from attending board meetings for the remainder of the year, go beyond the provisions of the Education Act.

The law says that a council can impose one or more of these sanctions: censorship of the member; prohibit the member from attending all or part of a meeting of the board or a meeting of a committee of the board; and prohibit the member from serving on one or more committees of the board for a period specified by the board.

Mullan said the board had sought a legal opinion, which confirmed that its sanctions followed “the intent of the Education Act and the policy of the board directors’ code of conduct.”

[email protected]

twitter.com/JacquieAMiller